Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: gratefuldiver Date: Jan 13, 2012 12:54am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Garcia and Diana Ross and Disco: Back me Up Here

"Rock and Roll" (which is the best genre to include our beloved band) owes its existence to an amalgamation of many kinds of music: blues, jazz, country/western, symphonic/orchestral, disco, etc. The vitriol against disco is interesting, but how does it differ from a Stones fanatic hearing C&W-influenced songs on Beggar's Banquet or Let It Bleed? Or every Beatles fan listening to Seargent Pepper for the first time? A true Stones fan with an open mind kept listening and embraced Exile on Main Street as the Stones' greatest album--not despite but BECAUSE of the C&W and blues influences that defines that masterpiece. Fire on the Mountain and Shakedown Street are almost as disco as the Dead ever were. Yet from those songs' debuts until today (Furthur, DSO, recordings of historic shows, whatever), didn't every one of you smile and start dancing the moment you heard Jerry play that first (very disco-esque) chord? WAH! :-) Perhaps the main reason we (Deadheads) exist is because our band was always somewhere between very good and off-the-charts fantastic despite huge changes in the genre of music played: bluegrass to blues and psychedelic jam to "roots" aka C&W to generic 70s R&R to disco etc. Drop the labels. They have no place in rock and roll and especially not with a band that thrived BECAUSE it transcended any category or style. Peace.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jan 13, 2012 12:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Garcia and Diana Ross and Disco: Back me Up Here

Suppose we're beating a DEAD horse here, but this was part of my point above--the drawing from different genres was what made them the "American Band" we know and love. However, the other pt that Ring, myself, others made was that this approach doesn't extend without limits (if you are the sort that makes such distinctions).

Again, it comes down to my perspective that qualitative judgements can be made about music, etc. (don't write in, I know others here disagree), but all you have to do is ask yourself, would it have been "OK" for the DEAD to "do rap/classics/whatever/etc" category of music that represents the antithesis of what they were about (according to "us")?

My view is that there are categories of music that many find repugnant (rap lyrics, whatever), or too far afield to suit a "60s born/bred band", and at the time, if you were there, and a "member" of the 60s, so too was disco.

It also depends on your view as to how much should a band reflect its roots and how much does it have to change to "stay alive" (no pun intended)?

So, just ask yourself, if Jerry had lived, would you embrace him doing the "classics" a la Rod Stewart? That stuff by Rod makes me throw up, but, it all depends on whether you draw such hard line distinctions on different genres as "good" or "bad", with respect to particular bands and their origins, and I can do that easily, while for others "it's all good".

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jan 13, 2012 1:36pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Garcia and Diana Ross and Disco: Back me Up Here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lyriqYqzX8